BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list
Thank you so much for an absolutely perfect outline and analysis of
the hexadic semiosic process.
Edwina
On Wed 20/05/20 10:28 AM , robert marty [email protected]
sent:
Thank you Jon Alan, this is really helpful and I thank you very much
for making this extreme clarification effort. I could have written the
first two paragraphs up to the number "729" and this is already a very
important achievement.
I can see the disagreement. To be sure, it is worth verifying that
in the daily practice of signs the analyses that you and I would make
would be as different as those that can be rationally prejudged when
we express each other. That's why I'll make you a proposal at the end
of the post.
1. Before I would like to clearly act the
theoretical disagreement:
you place If (= "what the sign itself would necessarily mean to
someone in ideal circumstances, including the ultimate opinion after
an infinite investigation by an infinite community") directly after S
that would logically determine it. The sequel is self-evident because
for you this If located just after S logically determines the last
two..
2. For me:
· S is perceived by existing subjects
(interpreters) (or who have existed depending on the time of the
analysis). S is the product of a coding a priori made with the help
of Oi and determined by Od. A process of interpretation takes place
at the time of the "physiological" perception of this sign (the
literature on visual signs is found in the notion of "retinex", a
suitcase word put for "retina+ cortex" that illustrates my point).).
The process is as follows:
* Id is for each subject the determination of his mind by
this perception. Id consists in the reactivation of what the subject
has actually internalized during his collateral experiments of the
earlier/external uses of this sign S. It is in a way his abstract
subjective theory in force in his mind at that very moment.
*
* Ie: is determined by Id itis the actualization of
this prior internalization faced with the current circumstances of
the perception of the sign (the perception of the flag of the USSR
today which does not have the same effect as in 1950 and yet its
characteristics are the same) in the mind of the subject. In other
words, this is what the transmitter manages to create in the mind of
the interpretater by successively using the only possible channels:
a prior coding followed by a percept .Any advertising sign is a
perfect illustration of my point and by extension I will go so far as
to say that all signs are signs of this nature from Roland Barthes'
"passionate roses" to Colin Powell's flour tube on February 5, 2003.
Efficient suits me very well because it reflects in a way the
"performance" of the sign with the interpreters he meets. For Roland
Barthes what the effects of red roses offered to people to whom
another person wants to express his passion, for Colin Powell it was
the effects of his tube on the whole world that had to perceive the
dreaded anthrax. Juste a reminder:"By the way, the dynamical object
does not mean something out of the mind. It means something forced
upon the mind in perception, but including more than perception
reveals. It is an object of actual Experience" (EP 478)
* Iex, explicit interpretant, is the result of this
confrontation. The subject is "forced" to either retain his
subjective theory, or modify it to take into account the experience
he has just done in particular circumstances. "But we must also note
that there is certainly a third kind of Interpretant, which I call
the Final Interpretant, because it is that which would finally be
decided to be the true interpretation if consideration of the matter
were carried so far that an ultimate opinion were reached." (CP
8.184). In other words, it is the subject who decides the
sustainability of his subjective theory strengthened or modified in a
race towards his ultimate opinion that could be the current opinion.
I come back to you: you place the subject (someone) from the
beginning in ideal circumstances where he would be the holder, at the
time of his perception of the sign, of the result of an infinite
investigation conducted by the community to which he belongs. For me
it is clearly "a view of the mind". How can he access it? For this
result cannot be communicated to him by the creator of the sign whose
conceptions in this area are historically dated. Certainly the issuer
can imagine him as a member of this community; he may have the means
to do so, and I do not deny him that possibility. The receiver too.
It would clearly be a recourse to a collective imagination, a
central concept of Jungian analytical psychology, also studied by
many sociologists, notably Cornelius Castoriadis and also
anthropologists ... Everything would then happen in this collective
imagination and the confrontation would occur between their
subjective theories as both participants in community building. But
now I may be driving you into areas you don't want to go to.
So could we continue this debate by exemplifying it on the simple
cases that I propose: semiotic analyses (summary, just the
essentials) with our respective hexadic signs of the flags of the
former USSR, Nazi Germany, the United States and France. It would not
be a beauty contest but an experience that can be revealing because
there are to my knowledge very few analyses with this six-item sign
except the examples of Peirce of course. If you agreed, I'll start
whenever you want.
Best regards and thank you again,
Robert
Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 03:52, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
Robert, List:
I apologize for the apparent lack of clarity in my posts. In this
one, I will try to limit myself to addressing your two specific
requests as directly as I can.
I have no objection whatsoever to the hexad sequence Od → Oi → S
→ Id → Ie → Iex where Od = dynamoid object, Oi = immediate
object, S = sign, Id = destinate interpretant, Ie = effective
interpretant, Iex = explicit interpretant, and → = determines.
After all, this is exactly what Peirce states at EP 2:481 (1908).
Right before this, he defines "determines" in what I call the
logical sense--"a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible" and
"a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant." In
other words, the universe to which any one correlate belongs
constrains the universe(s) to which the next correlate in the
sequence can belong. If the dynamical object is a possible (1ns),
then all the subsequent correlates are likewise possibles (1ns). If
the explicit interpretant is a necessitant (3ns), then all the
previous correlates are likewise necessitants (3ns). If the sign
itself is an existent (2ns), then the destinate interpretant is
either a possible (1ns) or an existent (2ns). And so on, yielding 28
classes of signs rather than 729.
As far as I know, we agree that the dynamoid object is what Peirce
elsewhere calls the dynamical object, and that the effective
interpretant is what he elsewhere calls the dynamical interpretant.
Our disagreement thus seems to be limited to the other two
interpretants. For reasons that I have explained, I believe that the
destinate interpretant is what Peirce elsewhere calls the final
interpretant, and that the explicit interpretant is what he elsewhere
calls the immediate interpretant. Just as the genuine (dynamical)
object logically determines the degenerate (immediate) object, the
genuine (final) interpretant logically determines the degenerate
(dynamical) interpretant, which logically determines the doubly
degenerate (immediate) interpretant. I define these three
interpretants as follows.
*The immediate (explicit) interpretant is whatever a sign type
possibly could signify to someone who possesses the requisite
acquaintance with the system of signs to which it belongs.
*The dynamical (effective) interpretant is whatever an individual
sign token actually does signify to someone on an individual occasion.
*The final (destinate) interpretant is whatever the sign itself
necessarily would signify to someone under ideal circumstances,
including the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite
community.
Is that helpful?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM robert marty wrote:
Jon Alan, Gary F., List
I agree for only one place for "destinate" but none for
"predestinate" , otherwise I'm sure you would have found it and
brandished it like a trophy ... 😉
Now I have to admit that I can't figure out what you say is clear so
much you're making little effort in the presentation to be precisely
clear. You produce such a fog of quotations, sentences that say what
a thing is mixed with what it is not, that a logical order in ideal
circumstances is not chronological order in other circumstances, ...
that I declare myself incapable in the current state of our exchanges
to take a critical look at your statement. I would like to quote
Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
"On pourrait, pour élaguer peu les tortillages et les amphigouris,
obliger tout harangueur à énoncer au commencement de son discours
la proposition qu'il veut faire".(J.J. Rousseau, Le Gouvernement de
Pologne.)
a sentence with two old terms untranslatable but you guess
criticisms that I like which means that it would "require any speaker
to state at the beginning of his speech the proposal he wishes to
make"... It's an effort I made to look at what was behind your
Sà(S-Od) à (S-If) sequence and I think I made it clear, which took
me a long time.
Also I would be very obliged to expose you
· what sequence you object exactly to the sequence:
Od à Oi à S à Id à Ie à Iex (LW December 23 1908)
?
(understanding that this sequence must be understood with
the definitions I have clearly stated for each of its elements
including the arrows)
· and of course, for each of its elements, the exact
definition you give of them, including the arrows.
Otherwise we will leave it by force of things…
In the meantime,
Well cordially to you
Robert
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
